DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8 December 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 9-13 and 15 has been withdrawn. However, newly added claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 December 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kamphus discloses a distribution layer comprising at least 50% by weight of cross-linked cellulose fibers in paragraph [0147], it is noted that this layer of Kamphus is not relied upon in the present rejection as the claimed distribution layer. Instead, it is the tissue layer disclosed in paragraph [0152] of Kampus that anticipates the claimed distribution layer. It is within the scope of the claims as presently written for the article of Kamphus to comprise additional layers not considered to be part of the claimed upper acquisition-distribution system. Kamphus therefore discloses an upper acquisition-distribution system comprising an acquisition layer as described in paragraph [0150] that does not contain cellulose fibers, and a distribution layer as described in paragraph [0152] that can comprise cellulose fibers but the cellulose fibers are not discloses as unbonded or cross-linked. Therefore, Kamphus anticipates the claims as presently written.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the lower acquisition and distribution layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 depends from claim 1, which does not disclose a lower acquisition and distribution layer. The lower acquisition and distribution layer was not disclosed until claim 9. For purposes of examination, claim 21 will be considered to depend from claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamphus (2017/0135870).
With respect to claim 1, Kamphus discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 6, comprising a liquid permeable topsheet 24, an absorbent core 28, and a liquid impermeable backsheet 25. The absorbent core comprises a top core wrap layer 16, a bottom core wrap layer 16’, and a layer of superabsorbent polymer particles 60, as shown in figure 1. The article further comprises an upper acquisition-distribution system 54, as shown in figure 7, consisting of one or more layers disposed between the topsheet 24 and absorbent core 28, and being substantially free of unbonded cross-linked cellulose fibers, as disclosed in paragraphs [0150-0151]. The superabsorbent polymer particles have a UPM of at least 45 .10-7(cm3.s/g), as disclosed in paragraph [0096]. The upper acquisition-distribution system 54 comprises a first layer and a second layer, the first layer being closer to the topsheet and the second layer closer to the absorbent core, as disclosed in paragraph [0152], wherein the first layer is a nonwoven acquisition layer, as disclosed in paragraph [0150], and the second layer is a nonwoven (i.e. tissue) distribution layer, as disclosed in paragraph [0152].
With respect to claim 2, the superabsorbent polymer particles have a UPM in the range of 55-90 .10-7(cm3.s/g), as disclosed in paragraph [0096].
With respect to claim 3, the superabsorbent polymer particles have an EFFC above 23 g/g, as disclosed in paragraph [0083].
With respect to claim 4, the superabsorbent polymer particles have an EFFC in the range of from 23.5-29 g/g, as disclosed in paragraph [0083].
With respect to claim 5, the superabsorbent polymer particles are not mixed with cellulose fibers, as disclosed in paragraphs [0018] and [0043].
With respect to claim 15, the superabsorbent polymer particles are surface and internally cross-linked, as disclosed in paragraph [0069]. The method of surface cross-linking a precursor is considered to be a product-by-process limitation that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
With respect to claim 16, the layer of superabsorbent polymer particles comprises at least one longitudinally-extending channel 26, as shown in figure 1, that is free of superabsorbent polymer particles, as disclosed in paragraph [0098].
With respect to claims 17-18, the superabsorbent polymer particles are surface and internally cross-linked, as disclosed in paragraph [0069]. The method of surface cross-linking a precursor is considered to be a product-by-process limitation that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamphus (2017/0135870) in view of Chmielewski et al. (2022/0265488).
With respect to claims 6 and 8, Kamphus discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the first and second layers of the upper acquisition system being a spunlaced nonwoven. Chmielewski teaches that supnlace nonwovens can improved softness and liquid acquisition, as disclosed in paragraph [0078]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first and second layers of Kamphus comprising spunlaced nonwoven, as taught by Chmielewski, to achieve improved softness and liquid acquisition.
With respect to claim 14, the layer of superabsorbent polymer particles of Kamphus comprises at least one longitudinally-extending channel 26, as shown in figure 1, that is free of superabsorbent polymer particles, as disclosed in paragraph [0098].
Claim(s) 9-13 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamphus (2017/0135870) in view of Erspamer et al. (6,420,626).
With respect to claims 9-10, Kamphus discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a lower acquisition and distribution layer between the layer of superabsorbent polymer particles and the backsheet comprising a nonwoven layer and having a basis weight from 20-100 gsm. Erspamer teaches providing a lower acquisition and distribution layer below the absorbent core of an absorbent article, as shown in figure 2, to reduce the problem of liquid recontacting the skin of the wearer, as disclosed in column 2, lines 7-12. The lower acquisition and distribution layer has a basis weight of 20-100 gsm, as disclosed in column 3, lines 16-17, and is a nonwoven (i.e. airlaid), as disclosed in column 2, lines 53-55. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the article of Kamphus with a lower acquisition and distribution layer between the layer of superabsorbent polymer particles and the backsheet comprising a nonwoven layer and having a basis weight of 20-100 gsm, as taught by Erspamer, to reduce liquid recontacting the skin of the wearer.
With respect to claims 11-12, Kamphus as modified by Erspamer does not disclose the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprising a surfactant coating and being hydrophilic but less hydrophilic than the bottom core wrap layer. Erspamer discloses the desire for the lower acquisition and distribution layer to be able to take in fluids and pass them back to the absorbent core for storage, as shown in figure 3. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lower acquisition and distribution layer of Kamphus as modified by Erspamer with a surfactant coating to achieve the predictable result of making the layer hydrophilic to accept fluids and to make the layer less hydrophilic than the bottom core wrap of the absorbent core to achieve the predictable result of encouraging fluid back into the absorbent core for storage.
With respect to claim 13, at least some of the superabsorbent polymer particles of Kamphus are immobilized by a thermoplastic fibrous net on at least one of the top or bottom core wraps, as disclosed in paragraph [0115].
With respect to claims 19-20, Kamphus discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 6, comprising a liquid permeable topsheet 24, an absorbent core 28, and a liquid impermeable backsheet 25. The absorbent core comprises a top core wrap layer 16, a bottom core wrap layer 16’, and a layer of superabsorbent polymer particles 60, as shown in figure 1. The article further comprises an upper acquisition-distribution system 54, as shown in figure 7, consisting of one or more layers disposed between the topsheet 24 and absorbent core 28, and being free of unbonded cross-linked cellulose fibers, as disclosed in paragraphs [0150-0151]. The superabsorbent polymer particles have a UPM of at least 45 .10-7(cm3.s/g), as disclosed in paragraph [0096].
Kamphus discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a lower acquisition and distribution layer between the layer of superabsorbent polymer particles and the backsheet. Erspamer teaches providing a lower acquisition and distribution layer below the absorbent core of an absorbent article, as shown in figure 2, to reduce the problem of liquid recontacting the skin of the wearer, as disclosed in column 2, lines 7-12. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the article of Kamphus with a lower acquisition and distribution layer between the layer of superabsorbent polymer particles and the backsheet, as taught by Erspamer, to reduce liquid recontacting the skin of the wearer.
With respect to claim 21, Kamphus discloses in paragraph [0150] the use of a carded nonwoven layer in an acquisition and distribution system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the lower acquisition and distribution layer of modified Kamphus comprise a carded nonwoven layer since Kamphus teaches that such a nonwoven is advantageous for use as an acquisition and distribution layer because in can be manufactured outside the converting line and used as a roll of material thus simplifying the manufacturing process (see Kamphus, paragraph [0150]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781